Ask yourself if the way you train JJJ is the same as the way you train BJJ. By this I mean, in BJJ you probably drill a technique with a partner, then steadily increase the level of resistance, then probably spar a bit at the end (in an alive manner).

If so, fine. If not, don't rely on your JJJ in a fight on confrontation.

Jiu jitsu aside, being able to make something work on a really drunk guy doesn't mean its a great technique. You can take them down with an untrained hearty shove.

Yeah I know, thats why I made a point about saying he was drunk and couldn't react slowly- if he was sober he could have definitely resisted it, he was just being a dick so I grabbed him to throw him out :D

Regarding the training live thing, I dont actually know at this club yet- Ive just moved here and started a new place, so before they started trying to take my head off with committed strikes they wanted to see what I could do. Judging by the way two yellow belts were training (corner of my eye) it seems to be pretty full on, they were going pretty hard at it. Only a few sessions will tell me if that means they were ACTUALLY going at it, or just going through a series of movements...

The 'self defence' style JJJ I used to train in in Brisbane was full on though- essentially went 'practice technique a few times slow, then just do it and the attacker resists if he/she can', which I think was pretty good. Being self defence there wasn't that much time 'resistance' (because most 'moves' only lasted about 3 seconds max- it wasn't a fight after all), but if the defender fucked up, the attacker carried on, and resisted if the opportunity arose.

Is there a definition of what constitutes "alive" around here? Cos I wouldn't call them per-scripted as such- I mean, if the defender fucks up the attacker is allowed to do anything they can (throw an elbow, throw them, whatever)... I mean, if 'alive' means that EVERY time you go through something the assailant can throw anything; then I don't see how that will teach you defence against that specific thing...

Addressing your point more directly, I’m not suggesting that there is no place for limited drills where, say, I get to throw one thing and you have to defend against it. Drills to build specific skills are good. But the ability to perform techniques against an opponent who actually wants to get you, rather than attack you with an expected attack at an expected time, requires training under conditions that involve an opponent who is trying to beat you. Not “act as attacker” to your defence, not resist your technique, but try to win, by using techniques you don’t expect, choosing the best time to come in, whatever the ruleset allows. Then it’s no longer a drill, but sparring. And this is necessary.

I don’t care how many times you’ve drilled a scripted response (or a collection of scripted responses) to, say, my right cross: if I’m really trying to get you and I’m just faking that punch while actually going for a hook or dropping for a double-leg, what you need is the ability to sense timing and adapt.

Ah yeah good point. Interesting thOugh, maybe should start a thread on it, because the second it turns into a fight, even in the street; it's exactly that- a fight, and no longer self defence.

For example, a would be male assailant who is stronger and bigger than a woman who's done a year or 2 self defence, attacks her. That attack can ONLY be one thing, it may be any number of things, but it's not going to be a fight starter, it's going to be a commuted attack with the presumption of instant overpowering. The "drill" kicks into place when (for example) the woman blocks the punch and smashes the guy in the throat, presumably fInishing the situation very quickly. Now, of she were to hit him in the face, and him to understand she's a little more capable, then he would probably end up winning based on size and strength, because it has become a fight right?

....although I guess if she'd trained in a system which taught fighting alive from the get go, if her initial "drill" style defence failed, she'd be able to anticipate and counter a few other things..... hmmm. I think I've answered my own question in that regard....

There's no separate phase of "drilled" response, it's a fight as soon as the physical attack is thrown (and often before, legally and tactically speaking). You're imagining a distinction which doesn't exist. People don't magically lose their ability to adjust and compensate because it's the first attack, that's a fantasy that's used to justify unrealistic application and poor technique, in my experience.

In addition, planning to let the other guy go first is probably the worst possible approach to street fighting.

There's no separate phase of "drilled" response, it's a fight as soon as the physical attack is thrown (and often before, legally and tactically speaking). You're imagining a distinction which doesn't exist. People don't magically lose their ability to adjust and compensate because it's the first attack, that's a fantasy that's used to justify unrealistic application and poor technique, in my experience.

In addition, planning to let the other guy go first is probably the worst possible approach to street fighting.

Gonna have to disagree on that one- Ive had a few instructors talk to me about this as well (including a Krav Maga one who are meant to be good at this stuff right?)

There is a distinction between self defence and a fight. A fight is 2 participants attacking each other. Defence is one person attacking another unwitting victim without the expectation of a certain degree of resistance (I say 'certain degree' because even untrained women will probably try and scratch or do the old 'elbow to the ribs' lol). Which is why 'Self defence' can only ever be a surprise. Once that element is gone, if you've failed to defend yourself, its a fight. This isn't talking about two guys squaring up to each other and going toe to toe.